Which party do you dislike most?

[RedWorker]

.

[Tim Cornelis]

KKE is in one of the best Stalinist parties (if not the best).
Don't know anything about the PCPE.
KPRF is social-chauvinist.
RCP is crazy cult party.

KPRF and RCP compete for worst, but since the KPRF is large and influential I voted for that.

[motion denied]

What's your problem with the PCPE, RW?

I'd like to use this information to tease people I know.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know, although the KPRF and RCPUSA are obviously crap, you don't see people going around shilling for them. So while I consider both to be rightist, family-mongering, social-democrat outfits at best, I would have to say my loathing of parties like Die Linke or SYRIZA is greater.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't really know the others except the RCP and the RCP aren't responsible for working with the police to violently defend a parliament against protesting workers, so I voted KKE.

[Tim Cornelis]

Oh here we go again. As far as I know, working with police is a valid criticism. But they never defended parliament. Please stop with this asinine nonsense.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh here we go again. As far as I know, working with police is a valid criticism. But they never defended parliament. Please stop with this asinine nonsense.

Yes they did. Now you can either believe the KKE's version of events or you can believe the version of events of everyone else who was there. It's entirely up to you.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes they did. Now you can either believe the KKE's version of events or you can believe the version of events of everyone else who was there. It's entirely up to you.

I don't particularly agree with either side. The video evidence in addition to simple reason, tell me that 1) there was not a snowball's chance in hell that circa 1,000 anarchists would be able to storm and occupy parliament (even if the intent was there which I doubt)
2) that they would therefore end up, as they had always in previous situations, hurling molotov cocktails at riot police from behind the fence; being blocked at all sides
3) that therefore the KKE/PAME reasonably feared and expected that their demonstration would fall apart from the violence.
Therefore, they were not defending parliament, they were defending their own demonstration in front of parliament. So I think it's unfair to criticise them on that basis.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't particularly agree with either side. The video evidence in addition to simple reason, tell me that 1) there was not a snowball's chance in hell that circa 1,000 anarchists would be able to storm and occupy parliament (even if the intent was there which I doubt)
2) that they would therefore end up, as they had always in previous situations, hurling molotov cocktails at riot police from behind the fence; being blocked at all sides
3) that therefore the KKE/PAME reasonably feared and expected that their demonstration would fall apart from the violence.
Therefore, they were not defending parliament, they were defending their own demonstration in front of parliament. So I think it's unfair to criticise them on that basis.

Which is exactly the KKE's version of events.

[Tim Cornelis]

Then the fact that I reached an identical conclusion based on impartial observation of video evidence and a bit of logic, without consulting what they actually wrote, shows that what they say is likely closer to the truth.

[The Feral Underclass]

Then the fact that I reached an identical conclusion based on impartial observation of video evidence and a bit of logic, without consulting what they actually wrote, shows that what they say is likely closer to the truth.

Because the KKE are so trustworthy.

Everyone who was there that wrote an account of what happened (not just anarchists) as well as the numerous photographs that were taken show KKE and their supporters ahead of a police line in Syntagma square preventing demonstrators from approaching parliament. Your "logic" is based upon a version of events by a communist group being called reactionaries...How is that credible?

But it's interesting that when presented with a scenario, your instinct is to a) deny that what anarchists said they were doing is what they were actually doing and b) make apologies for a Stalinist organisation that has actively collaborated with the police -- which includes handing over militants to them, and which everyone else agrees were doing something they were very evidently doing.

[Tim Cornelis]

Because the KKE are so trustworthy.

Everyone who was there that wrote an account of what happened (not just anarchists) as well as the numerous photographs that were taken show KKE and their supporters ahead of a police line in Syntagma square preventing demonstrators from approaching parliament. Your "logic" is based upon a version of events by a communist group being called reactionaries...How is that credible?

But it's interesting that when presented with a scenario, your instinct is to a) deny that what anarchists said they were doing is what they were actually doing and b) make apologies for a Stalinist organisation that has actively collaborated with the police -- which includes handing over militants to them, and which everyone else agrees were doing something they were very evidently doing.


Yes they did. Now you can either believe the KKE's version of events or you can believe the version of events of everyone else who was there. It's entirely up to you.

This is so frustrating. You're not at all to what I'm saying and you use dishonest arguments.

-----------------------------------------------------


Yes they did. Now you can either believe the KKE's version of events or you can believe the version of events of everyone else who was there. It's entirely up to you.

I wasn't sure before, but apparently you were making a point here. Somehow, "everyone else" who was there is more credible. That makes no sense if you think about. Because essentially you put up 'one camp' against everyone else, implying since 'everyone else' is more diffuse they are more credible. I could rephrase it "You can either believe the anarchist's version of events, or you can believe everyone else" would be similarly suggestive.


Because the KKE are so trustworthy.

I repeat again: I have not read the KKE's version of events.


Everyone who was there that wrote an account of what happened (not just anarchists) as well as the numerous photographs that were taken show KKE and their supporters ahead of a police line in Syntagma square preventing demonstrators from approaching parliament.

I repeat again: if they had managed to approach parliament then they would end up, as they had always in previous situations, hurling molotov cocktails at riot police (the police line) from behind the fence; being blocked at all sides.


Your "logic" is based upon a version of events by a communist group being called reactionaries...How is that credible?

I repeat again: I have not read the KKE version of events, so I can't be biased or slanted in their favour.


But it's interesting that when presented with a scenario, your instinct is to a) deny that what anarchists said they were doing is what they were actually doing and b) make apologies for a Stalinist organisation that has actively collaborated with the police -- which includes handing over militants to them, and which everyone else agrees were doing something they were very evidently doing.

On the contrary, my instinct was to side with the anarchists. Only when then reviewing the evidence I gradually came around. Throughout the thread ( http://www.revleft.com/vb/kke-assisting-police-t163031/index.html?t=163031 ) I thanked and made posts supportive of the anarchists, denouncing the KKE, until I started to review the video evidence.

What you're doing here is dishonest and fallacious argumentation. You do not directly address the points but instead choose the road of character assassination, question the KKE's trustworthiness and therefore concluding they must be lying, questioning my character, etc.

I thought I was making a reasonable case without firebrand rhetoric, so I expected a reasonable response. That would entail you looking at my arguments and then pointing out the flaw in the reasoning:

1) there was not a snowball's chance in hell that circa 1,000 anarchists would be able to storm and occupy parliament (even if the intent was there which I doubt)
2) that they would therefore end up, as they had always in previous situations, hurling molotov cocktails at riot police from behind the fence; being blocked at all sides
3) that therefore the KKE/PAME reasonably feared and expected that their demonstration would fall apart from the violence.
Therefore, they were not defending parliament, they were defending their own demonstration in front of parliament. So I think it's unfair to criticise them on that basis.

1) is wrong because such and such reason; therefore 2 and 3 do not follow, because such and such reason. Therefore, different conclusion.

Have you seen anarchists in action at Syntagma square, and their previous 'approachings' of parliament? What reasons do we have to believe that they 1) intended to do something else and 2) that they would have succeeded at that? And given the track record of anarchists and the predictable outcome (police action), wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that KKE/PAME was defending their demonstration from being dispersed as a result of violence, rather than that anarchists tried to storm and occupy the parliament? And if the anarchists really intended to storm and occupy it, why haven't they tried it since?

[The Feral Underclass]

This is so frustrating. You're not at all to what I'm saying and you use dishonest arguments.

You need to learn that just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they're not listening.

I've read and re-read what you said. My responses stand. If you find them dishonest, then that's your problem, not mine.


I wasn't sure before, but apparently you were making a point here. Somehow, "everyone else" who was there is more credible.

Yes. When a Stalinist organisation seeks to defend itself from accusations of collaboration by giving a version of events that contradicts everyone else's version of events in their favour, that strikes me as lacking credibility. Why? Because I'm not politically naive.


That makes no sense if you think about. Because essentially you put up 'one camp' against everyone else, implying since 'everyone else' is more diffuse they are more credible.

I realise that you're trying to be "objective" and unbiased about this, and that's your prerogative, but it is naive and stupid.


I could rephrase it "You can either believe the anarchist's version of events, or you can believe everyone else" would be similarly suggestive.

I have no reason to believe anarchists would lie about trying to get to parliament...Why would they lie? Do you think anarchists care about whether or not people know they were trying to beat up Stalinists...?


I repeat again: if they had managed to approach parliament then they would end up, as they had always in previous situations, hurling molotov cocktails at riot police (the police line) from behind the fence; being blocked at all sides.

So?


I repeat again: I have not read the KKE version of events, so I can't be biased or slanted in their favour.

But you agree with them?


On the contrary, my instinct was to side with the anarchists. Only when then reviewing the evidence I gradually came around. Throughout the thread ( http://www.revleft.com/vb/kke-assisting-police-t163031/index.html?t=163031 ) I thanked and made posts supportive of the anarchists, denouncing the KKE, until I started to review the video evidence.

What you're doing here is dishonest and fallacious argumentation. You do not directly address the points but instead choose the road of character assassination, question the KKE's trustworthiness and therefore concluding they must be lying, questioning my character, etc.

In my view, your character is questionable when you side with Stalinists. You can take that or leave it, I don't give a fuck what you think about that point-of-view. You can think whatever you want.

And I just don't understand what you mean when you say I haven't addressed your points. What exactly is there to address? You gave a version of events which does not correlate with the facts as they exist. What more is there to say?


I thought I was making a reasonable case without firebrand rhetoric, so I expected a reasonable response. That would entail you looking at my arguments and then pointing out the flaw in the reasoning

Reasonable or not, it's wrong.


[I]1) there was not a snowball's chance in hell that circa 1,000 anarchists would be able to storm and occupy parliament (even if the intent was there which I doubt)

So?


2) that they would therefore end up, as they had always in previous situations, hurling molotov cocktails at riot police from behind the fence; being blocked at all sides

So?


1) there was not a snowball's chance in hell that circa 1,000 anarchists would be able to storm and occupy parliament (even if the intent was there which I doubt)
2) that they would therefore end up, as they had always in previous situations, hurling molotov cocktails at riot police from behind the fence; being blocked at all sides
3) that therefore the KKE/PAME reasonably feared and expected that their demonstration would fall apart from the violence.
Therefore, they were not defending parliament, they were defending their own demonstration in front of parliament. So I think it's unfair to criticise them on that basis.

Have you seen anarchists in action at Syntagma square, and their previous 'approachings' of parliament? What reasons do we have to believe that they 1) intended to do something else and 2) that they would have succeeded at that? And given the track record of anarchists and the predictable outcome (police action), wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that KKE/PAME was defending their demonstration from being dispersed as a result of violence, rather than that anarchists tried to storm and occupy the parliament? And if the anarchists really intended to storm and occupy it, why haven't they tried it since?

So let me try and understand this...

Your view is that anarchists were trying to get to Parliament (although you doubt that -- so why were they there?). In order to stop their demonstration from turning violent, the KKE violently tried to stop anarchists from doing the thing they were or were not doing? Is that what you're saying? If not you can try and explain yourself in a way that I can understand you...

Cuz I can only see two options here based on what you're claiming:

1. The anarchists were there to storm parliament and the KKE, afraid of the police reaction to their demonstration, violently attacked anarchists to prevent them from doing so -- which may be semantically different, but is essentially the same as defending parliament.

2. The anarchists lied about what they were doing there and actually just wanted to attack Stalinists, so the Stalinists, fearing violence from the police, turned violent against the anarchists to prevent the violence...

[Tim Cornelis]

You need to learn that just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they're not listening.

I've read and re-read what you said. My responses stand. If you find them dishonest, then that's your problem, not mine.



Yes. When a Stalinist organisation seeks to defend itself from accusations of collaboration by giving a version of events that contradicts everyone else's version of events in their favour, that strikes me as lacking credibility. Why? Because I'm not politically naive.



I realise that you're trying to be "objective" and unbiased about this, and that's your prerogative, but it is naive and stupid.



I have no reason to believe anarchists would lie about trying to get to parliament...Why would they lie? Do you think anarchists care about whether or not people know they were trying to beat up Stalinists...?



So?



But you agree with them?



In my view, your character is questionable when you side with Stalinists. You can take that or leave it, I don't give a fuck what you think about that point-of-view. You can think whatever you want.

And I just don't understand what you mean when you say I haven't addressed your points. What exactly is there to address? You gave a version of events which does not correlate with the facts as they exist. What more is there to say?



Reasonable or not, it's wrong.



So?



So?



So let me try and understand this...

Your view is that anarchists were trying to get to Parliament (although you doubt that -- so why were they there?). In order to stop their demonstration from turning violent, the KKE violently tried to stop anarchists from doing the thing they were or were not doing? Is that what you're saying? If not you can try and explain yourself in a way that I can understand you...

Cuz I can only see two options here based on what you're claiming:

1. The anarchists were there to storm parliament and the KKE, afraid of the police reaction to their demonstration, violently attacked anarchists to prevent them from doing so -- which may be semantically different, but is essentially the same as defending parliament.

2. The anarchists lied about what they were doing there and actually just wanted to attack Stalinists, so the Stalinists, fearing violence from the police, turned violent against the anarchists to prevent the violence...

"You gave a version of events which does not correlate with the facts as they exist." You have not demonstrated the facts as far as I can see

"When a Stalinist organisation seeks to defend itself from accusations of collaboration by giving a version of events that contradicts everyone else's version of events in their favour, that strikes me as lacking credibility. Why? Because I'm not politically naive."

I've already explained the problem with phrasing it as such. I could equally say "when anarchists seek to slander Stalinists as collaborators by giving a version of events that contradicts everyone else's [i.e. PAME and KKE members] version of events, that strikes me as lacking credibility because I'm not politically naive." This is wrong because "everyone else's" means "the other side". It's a dishonest tactic (yeah, yeah my problem).
And again I've not read the KKE's version of events so how is it possible that after an impartial observation-and-deduction of the available evidence, I came to a conclusion that contradicts "everyone else's" [i.e. the anarchist's side]? That's simply impossible because if you are right, then the only conclusion after such an impartial observation would be to side with the anarchist's side. So then, was I not impartial despite me being an anarchist and initially siding with the anarchists? How do you account for that?

As far as I can make out from this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2269570&postcount=316), ANTARSYA and SYRIZA oppose the anarchists' version of events. Of course, presumably you will now attack those parties, since they don't politically align, which is fallacious reasoning, and also my problem. The point being, it seems "everyone else" = everyone you agree with, selectively.

You openly champion fallacious and dishonest methods of arguing, calling into question someone's character, as if relevant. Rather than review the evidence independently, you choose to focus on character. But that's apparently my problem.

My view is that anarchists were going to riot in front of parliament as always, not storm and occupy parliament.

1. The anarchists were there to riot in front of parliament, as they had always done, and the KKE, afraid of the police reaction to their demonstration, formed a human wall to prevent anarchists from doing so.

2. The anarchists lied about what they intended to do in hindsight to dishonestly label the KKE as defenders of the parliament, which was never at risk of being stormed and occupied.

As far as I remember, it were the anarchists that initiated the violence, not the Stalinists. Additionally, they formed a human wall, which, after being attacked, was used offensively, so the gross of demonstrators could continue.

And I ask again, how is it that the anarchists have not seized parliament after? If, apparently, the only thing standing behind this act is a KKE demonstration, then they could have simply gone the next day, or any other day when the KKE did not demonstrate there. The answer is real simple: it's impossible to seize parliament (with the resources they have and had).

So in conclusion, the parliament was not in any risk, of neither vandalism nor seizure and occupation, from the anarchists. And given that the anarchists have shown the incapacity before and after the event in question of doing any damage to the building or institution of parliament, I think it's only reasonable to conclude that the anarchists did not have any intention of storming parliament knowing full well, given their collective history, their incapability of doing so. And therefore the KKE sought to defend their demonstration from being disrupted, and was not defending parliament from being stormed, as it simply was not in any risk of being stormed.

The video which swayed me:

vDNxAbDcfbo

We see the KKE/PAME trying to hold a peaceful demonstration, fearing that the anarchists will make their way to the front of parliament (again, not storming it) and disrupting it. They form a human wall in an effort to keep their demonstration peaceful. This fails. But clearly, we see the anarchists hurling debris and sticks at them, as well as molotov cocktails. So they did not initiate the violence. Of course, they failed at keeping it peaceful, but that's besides the point.

It's also mentioned that they want to persuade the lawmakers. Obviously ineffective, but so is hurling stuff toward riot police over the fences and up the stairs.

Briefly, the KKE's position is also mentioned "premeditated attack [by extremist hooligans]". That's not my position. I've also expressed disagreement with their collaboration with the police.

[Lord Testicles]

Ugh, peaceful protesters, what servile wretches.

[Tim Cornelis]

That's not the point, if that was your point, if you get my point.

[motion denied]

wheres delenda carthago and wanted man when you need em

also phoenix ash

[The Feral Underclass]

Lol, that video of the KKE shows anarchists trying to move towards parliament and KKE people forming defensive lines to prevent them...

[Lord Testicles]

That's not the point, if that was your point, if you get my point.

I'm assuming that your post above my previous post was directed mainly at TFU.

My point is fuck the KKE if they're so cowardly that they're more willing to turn their violence against the more militant protesters as opposed to focusing that violence onto the state itself.

Peaceful protest is just a byword for impotent action.

[Tim Cornelis]

Lol, that video of the KKE shows anarchists trying to move towards parliament and KKE people forming defensive lines to prevent them...

I've already addressed this. You said previously that you read what I write, and that it's my fault for not making it more comprehensible, but at this point I can't see how I can explain it any better. "My view is that anarchists were going to riot in front of parliament as always, not storm and occupy parliament [as they never did before or have since]." That says it pretty plainly, surely. In order to riot in front of parliament, you need to move towards parliament, of course. That doesn't change that the KKE defending its demonstration, also in front of parliament.


I'm assuming that your post above my previous post was directed mainly at TFU.

My point is fuck the KKE if they're so cowardly that they're more willing to turn their violence against the more militant protesters as opposed to focusing that violence onto the state itself.

Peaceful protest is just a byword for impotent action.

That's another discussion is my point.

[The Feral Underclass]

I've already addressed this. You said previously that you read what I write, and that it's my fault for not making it more comprehensible, but at this point I can't see how I can explain it any better. "My view is that anarchists were going to riot in front of parliament as always, not storm and occupy parliament [as they never did before or have since]." That says it pretty plainly, surely. In order to riot in front of parliament, you need to move towards parliament, of course. That doesn't change that the KKE defending its demonstration, also in front of parliament.

I find it amusing that because I state a contrary opinion you get confused and the only explanation for you is that I just haven't read what you said. Is that because you think all I have to do is read what you write and that it will suddenly make me realise how I wrong I am? "But, but I've already explained. Me, with my words. How can you still not agree. I have spoken therefore I am right."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slavic]

I never liked the Lemon Party

They like to impose age restrictions on their newer members.

[The Idler]

I don't really know the others except the RCP and the RCP aren't responsible for working with the police to violently defend a parliament against protesting workers, so I voted KKE.
Well as this is chit-chat, not too bothered whether parliament is defended or not, but I find the RCP cult entertaining, so they got that going for them which is nice.